Operating in an energy and fuel intensive industry, reducing usages results in not only a sizable

impact on the environment and C02 emissions, but can have a dramatic impact on cost savings.
ABI has already saved approximately 110M USD internationally since enacting measures to
reduce energy usage from 2009-2013. Evidently, energy conservation has both a palpable
business and environmental case. (Sustainalytics report). ABI recognizes the growing
importance of taking action in their energy and fuel performance, stating that they have increased
their focus due to the fluctuating energy costs and stricter climate regulations emerging in areas
of operation ( Just drink Article).
To evaluate ABI energy and fuel conservation along the Triple E Framework (Valente), the
following criteria were considered: commitment, stakeholder engagement, and industry
leadership.
The degree to which energy and fuel conservation is a commitment for ABI, is tethered to how
such initiatives are embedded into ABI as well their performance. ABI recognizes its responsibility
to conserve these resources at virtually all steps in its supply chain. However, ABIs overall
approach still seems relatively undisruptive and serving of short team goals as opposed to long-
term sustainability. This indicates an episodic approach, as illustrated by the following
examples. ABI states it is converting to green sources when available and financially
viable(sustainability report). With 9% of all energy usage coming from green sources, and no set
goals to expand going forward, their commitment to forging long-term green-energy infrastructure
is not a key focus.
Another testament to ABIs episodic approach lies in their wordy goal to have 70% of all new
cooler purchases be energy efficient by 2017. That is that 70% of branded coolers they
distribute to vendors going forward will meet their own energy efficiency critera. Not only are they
not committing to replacing existing coolers containing harmful coolants, but also they are not
planning for all new coolers to be efficient.
Admirably, ABI pledged in 2014 to decrease logistic GHG by 15 by 2015. Their available and
viable approach surfaced in their first step, which announced unprecedented plans to replace a
fleet of diesel trucks to compressed natural gas. The fleet change is exclusively in Texas, where
government heavily subsidizes the purchase of such trucks.
An embedded approach actively engages stakeholders in initiatives. ABI identifies the need for
external stakeholder involvement in their energy/fuel efforts, but their fragmented approach
denotes an episodic placement on the spectrum. ABI has assembled a diverse environmental
advisory board of experts from agriculture, wild life, and nutrition whose role is to provide
feedback and forge external connections. The integration of these experts into operations is
ambiguous, and seemingly cosmetic. ABI primarily relies on internal assurance. For example, ABI
touts its own Voyager Plant Optimization global management system, which integrates all key
ISO standards into operations but discloses no external certification. However, ABI has plans for
100% external assurance by 2015.
From an industry perspective, ABI is neither a laggard nor a leader in fuel and energy
conservation. The consumer-facing ABI does not highlight energy conservation efforts, nor are initiatives
particularly radical enough to warrant such a position. Everything pertaining to conservation processes
and GHG emissions are generally in line with what is expected at an industry level. ABI does not
demonstrate expertise in the arena, but its general awareness and status quo efforts align it with an
episodic approach once again.